Date and Reliability of the Gospels.

[Cornelius]

That is not what I am saying. But furthermore, I know a little bit about biblical scholarship, and in my experience there is plenty of reasonable doubt about Luke's "credibility" from within the guild. That is not to say that he was a lousy historian, but that he was a typical historian who was writing an agenda-driven account. Of course it contained lots of accurate information, but was also supplemented by embellishments, analogies, and speculations that satisfied his own readers' expectations.

The point that I was making is that, "Would an historian who went over his history so carefully even have such an agenda that went contrary to his whole purpose of being careful?" Especially one where the embellishments would be so easily discernible as they would have occurred within recent memory. If you think that an historian who went to the trouble of finding out minute details would then turn around and "satisfy his own readers' expectations," you're looking at a glaring inconsistency that simply makes no sense - and one for which you've provided no evidence. I've read numerous attempts by the likes of Haenchen to try and pin so-called "creative writing" in Acts: all of it simply shows either a lack of common sense in story and history narration, or unconscious hubris.

In biography writing it was very important to construct an ideal figure, and Luke was no exception in this regard.

Not true at all. Plutarch's Lives are a very good example of a person's attempt at an unbiased portrait of his biographical subjects. There are many others such as Peter Abelard's autobiography and the poor and good choices he made throughout his life. I don't see any ideal figures there at all. The problem with Plutarch is that he did indeed have legends because many of his sources fell short, being about persons that lived hundreds of years before him - Luke (and Abelard) didn't have that problem.

Luke's account being based on real places and people is not the point at all. The point is that an historian who had such good merit and access to sources would have certainly reported the truth reliably. And the fact that he was able to get such minute details is most certainly a guarantee of the fact that he'd get major events within recent memory correct! Just think of the numerous theories today of Hitler having survived Berlin in 1945 - they have no credibility amongst historians who have investigated the details of those days. It would be no different for Luke who had the same reliable facts at his disposal for the same time frame.

The main historical idea I had in mind with my comments was the Resurrection and how utterly absurd it would have been for a careful historian like Luke to either: a) be duped into believing it if it was false, b) report it despite knowing it was false. Besides, you would probably be familiar with the word parallelomania regarding the supposed similarities between the OT and the Gospels: there were poor and hungry people of every generation and I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't just Elijah and Jesus who miraculously fed them. Besides, if the NT was trying to draw a parallel to them, the Ascension Luke depicts would have certainly been at least as spectacular as Elijah's flying horses drawing a chariot of fire. Even the Greco-Roman ascensions have some sort of flavor, yet the one depicted in Acts is completely unlike them.

Honestly, so what? While I agree that Polybius, Heroditus, and Tacitus were excellent ancient historians, they were still ancient historians, who tended to ask different questions, and followed different conventions in writing their histories from what we expect in the modern world.

Anyways, their quality does not tell us anything about Luke's own distinction as an historian.

Their quality is a quality Luke shares so if Polybius, who set the standard for historiography, was in this state of mind, so would have Luke been. And it is not true at all that they would "ask different questions" and "followed different conventions." Polybius quite masterfully utilizes higher textual criticism in exposing an older anti-Roman account of the First Punic War by pointing out incongruities much the same way I've seen modern textual critics do so. I can give you the source if you'd like, but your claim is simply based on prejudice and lack of knowledge. Another example is Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria (3rd century), whose comments, recorded by Eusebius, on the authorship of Revelation vs John practically list every objection scholars for the past 200 years have had: he anticipates them all 1600 years earlier! For you to simply say that the historians back then were "different" in that they couldn't get some major fact or fiction as such is simply, as any first grader can tell you, wrong.

Furthermore, they conducted their work in a dearth of documentation and wide-spread literacy. Of course it was important for them to consult eye-witnesses and to see places where such things occurred, because written records and reliable documented accounts were very scarce, by and large.

Well, Polybius, as Durant notes, used firsthand evidence: eyewitnesses, inscriptions, and even going through the pass Hannibal went through himself. Written records are not necessary when you have those.

So, the argument is that based on his own assertion about his due diligence, we MUST accept Luke's account as factually accurate and reliable? That seems like a massive stretch. Should we extend such courtesy to every similar claim of credibility?

No, the argument is that since his work attests to what he claims, and his claims give us an idea as to his purpose and methodology, we have every reason to trust he would have known whether Jesus historically rose from the dead (and did many miracles) or not. We should most certainly extend this criteria to sources we have reason to believe are credible and Luke has supported his credibility at every turn.

Let's take a look at what Luke says, shall we?


In the first place, it is important to note that Luke indicates that the stories he is writing down have survived as part of a long standing set of oral traditions that "were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses." The word here is most commonly used to refer to the process of oral transmission. So, what Luke is doing is setting down on papyrus (as it were) things that have survived in Christian oral tradition. Second, what does he mean by an "orderly account"? This word is perhaps best simply translated as a "narrative", and his concern basically seems to be that past accounts have missed important parts of the story, and have not set things in the right order.

Of course this begs the question: What is the right order for Luke? Is he primarily concerned to get the facts right? I'm not convinced. More likely, he seems most concerned to produce a convincing presentation of "the events that have been fulfilled among us". So, this is not just a story about Jesus; this is a story about Jesus that is predicated on the fulfilment of a prior scriptural narrative, and within a thoroughly religious context.

Your assessment is not accurate at all nor have you provided evidence that Luke was simply concerned with proving what was "fulfilled amongst" them. Many authors wrote inaccurate histories of the Jewish War as soon as it was over, as Josephus informs us. Secondly, he specifically uses the phrase "an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us" as the history of events surrounding Jesus and possibly Paul as is evident from his very next sentence. Finally, you completely ignore his statement that, "I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you" out of...personal preference?

So, to that end, what is Luke investigating? No doubt, he is in conversation with the oral tradition, and perhaps even some of the "eyewitnesses" who might still be alive (this is not certain).

The oral tradition would have been based, without a doubt, on eyewitnesses, as the prologue itself notes, or those who spoke with such. This is abundantly clear from Papias who, a generation after Luke, spoke with those who spoke with witnesses. This means Luke would have certainly had access to eyewitnesses, writing around 90 AD. Most likely his sources would have been reliable presbyters who were either witnesses or spoke with such, seeing those were Papias' sources, contrary to Ehrman's "telephone corrupted oral tradition" objection.

But the important point must also be that he is demonstrating the truth of the fulfilment by way of how it comports to his reading of Old Testament scriptures. In other words, for Luke the quality of his account is not in how his description accords to what actually happened so much as it fulfils a pre-existing religious, scriptural narrative. It certainly does not follow that his account will be factual, so much as it will be "fulfilling".

This ideology, popularized in 1913 by Wenland and mainly continued by Ernst Haenchen contradicts:

1. The evidence thus far cited that exposes Luke as a careful historian.
2. The prologue's own intention and the fact that Luke attempts to present an accurate picture of the events

Not to mention you've given zero evidence for this beside your Elijah-Elisha connections (or connexions if you want early 20th century English). Present some evidence (words/style/structure - examples from history where this is clear) to support your claims, please.

Oh, Polybius and Froissart have their biases and errors, I admit this. But the level of discrediting you are attempting to pass onto Luke is not a consideration because of these parallel cases (Polybius, Tacitus, Froissart). Froissart used witness accounts (Jean Le Bel) and numerous interviews of witnesses in much the same way Luke tells us he did. There is simply no reason to doubt Luke simply because, well....you want to. The skill of the reporting is not under question - it's simply not that hard to ask a question and write down the answer as these gentlemen have done.

This is simply because we recognise the limitations of their own sources and methods, and the nature of history telling in the times in which they wrote, which is effectively different than it is today.

What limitations are there in the method and sources of reporting what eyewitnesses said? There is no reason to doubt these, and the places where Froissart messes up are in terms of distances (places he was never at) and his major errors are chronology (minor - the foundation of the Order by Edward III, etc), perhaps a few on motivation (the Jacquerie), but not on what actually happened.

Furthermore, we have since the time that Durant wrote learned that the reliability of eye-witness testimony is extremely thin: if we can't trust all of our own perceptions today, what reason do we have to trust those of the ancients?

I'm sorry but in your zeal to overturn Luke you're trying to overturn common sense! Eyewitness testimony is our best and only primary evidence, I hope you know that, since primary sources are written by, well, eyewitnesses! Memories fade only after decades but certainly not on issues such as: "Did Jesus son of Joseph, you know, the person you followed for two or three years rise from the dead?" --- "Yeah, maybe, I'm not sure!" Surely you can see you're missing something here.

Finally, I am not at all convinced that Durant would share your own bullish attitude towards the historicity of Luke's account of Jesus.

Oh but we can all be convinced he most certainly wouldn't share your biased and unhistorical attitude towards eyewitnesses since his quote completely contradicts you! ;)

In the end, there is nothing in your response that addresses my question about the Magnificat, which I will repeat: How does the presence of this text somehow validate Luke's quality as a historian?

In actual fact, I would argue that the Magnificat does a very good job of confirming Luke's purpose in writing an "orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us." The Magnificat functions to show the fulfilment of scripture, and this is received as the measure of truth.

I never said I thought the Magnificat proved anything nor did I say I was trying to say so. In fact I stated the exact opposite. What I do know is that Bultmann and I believe others have recognized specifically in Luke 1-2 ancient Semitic sources. But the overall assessment of Luke as an historian simply trumps your objections, and has nothing to do specifically with the Magnificat.